Misconstruals Miss the Mark: A Reply to El Guindi and Read
Author(s): Geoff Kushnick and Daniel M. T. Fessler
Reviewed work(s):
Source: Current Anthropology, Vol. 53, No. 1 (February 2012), pp. 136-137
Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological
Research
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/663589 .
Accessed: 13/06/2012 03:36
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
The University of Chicago Press and Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research are collaborating
with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Current Anthropology.
http://www.jstor.org
136
Misconstruals Miss the Mark
A Reply to El Guindi and Read
Geoff Kushnick and Daniel M. T. Fessler
Department of Anthropology, University of Washington,
Seattle, Washington 98195–3100, U.S.A. (kushnick@u
.washington.edu)/Center for Behavior, Evolution, and Culture, Department of Anthropology, 341 Haines Hall, University of California, Los Angeles, California 90095–1553,
U.S.A. 21 X 11
El Guindi and Read criticize our (Kushnick and Fessler 2011)
exploration of Westermarckian phenomena on the grounds
that (1) evidence in support of the Westermarck hypothesis
(WH) is weak and (2) our characterization of Karo marriage
preferences is misguided. Their critique, however, suffers from
a selective use of the literature, a misconstrual of the hypothesis at issue, and factual errors.
El Guindi and Read’s first position presumes that human
psychology lacks evolved inbreeding-avoidance mechanisms—in their words, “Why should there be a natural aversion among siblings?” While this was a plausible question
when Westermarck’s contemporaries challenged him over a
century ago, it is an astounding position to adopt today. Voluminous evidence documents such mechanisms in other species (e.g., Pusey 2004), findings paralleled by psychological
research in humans independent of the natural experiments
that El Guindi and Read problematize (Lieberman et al. 2003,
2007; Fessler and Navarette 2004). Moreover, the evidence
regarding natural experiments is far less equivocal than El
Guindi and Read suggest. Humans’ detection of biological
relatedness relies on a hierarchy of cues (Lieberman et al.
2007). When natural experiments are revisited in light of this
(Lieberman 2009; Lieberman and Lobel 2012), the evidence
in favor of the WH is substantially strengthened—indeed,
contrary to the impression created by El Guindi and Read’s
out-of-context quotation, Rantala and Marcinkowska (2011)
made exactly this point in their review.
El Guindi and Read discuss the prevalence of cousin marriage in Qatar, and point to Henrich and Henrich’s (2007)
work among Chaldeans, as evidence of “the desirability of
marriage among close kin.” However, the authors are (1)
conflating a cultural preference for cousin marriage with the
subjective experience of sexual attraction and (2) failing to
grasp the role of cosocialization in the WH. There is nothing
new in the observation that norms for cousin marriage are
common—indeed, it was precisely this that motivated Westermarck’s original work, as the conflict he observed was between a prescription for cousin marriage and a subjective
aversion resulting from cosocialization. Correspondingly, al䉷 2012 by The Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research.
All rights reserved. 0011-3204/2012/5301-0013$10.00. DOI: 10.1086/
663589
Current Anthropology Volume 53, Number 1, February 2012
though the Henrichs observed many cases of first-cousin marriage, none were among cousins who had been cosocialized
(J. Henrich, personal communication, 2011). El Guindi and
Read’s statement that “cousins in many traditional Arab social
systems live close to one another, engage in daily interactions,
are considered to be ideal spouses, and form stable marriages”
fails to distinguish between simple interaction and cosocialization. Adducing observations of successful cousin marriage
in the absence of cosocialization reveals a fundamental lack
of understanding of the WH, as the success of such marriages
is exactly what the WH predicts.
El Guindi and Read’s second position is to take exception
to our “assumptions” about Karo marriage. First, they claim
that we have “asserted without presenting evidence” the existence of “a folk model of aversion purportedly spreading
among the people.” In so characterizing our paper, they simultaneously overstate our claim and understate our evidence. As we noted, our second model, incorporating realistic
demographic assumptions, was used to explore the “possibility” that a folk model explanation applies. We concluded
that rates of cosocialization “seem sufficiently high to potentially generate and maintain the counternormative folk
model” (Kushnick and Fessler 2011:446). We thus proposed
that the necessary preconditions exist for a folk model stemming from the Westermarck effect—nothing more.
Second, El Guindi and Read claim that the observed rate
of impal marriage (3.5%) is exactly as expected and thus does
not support the inference that a Westermarck effect is at play.
They base this on a misguided application of Kunstadter et
al.’s (1963) simulation that predicts rates of matrilateral crosscousin marriages (first cousins only) at 25%–30% with a cultural preference, and 1%–2% in the absence of one (not 3%–
4% as claimed by El Guindi and Read, a figure concocted by
doubling the prediction to include second cousins). However,
impal marriages are clearly culturally preferred. For instance,
Kipp (1983:130) states that “the most desirable marriages are
between impal.” Singarimbun’s (1975) statement, quoted by
El Guindi and Read, that Karo do not “encourage these forms
of marriage above all others” derives from Singarimbun’s observation that impal marriages rarely occur. In short, El
Guindi and Read have mistaken the explanandum for the
explanans. Even if the cultural preference is weaker than Kipp
claims, Kunstadter et al.’s (1963) figures still do not support
El Guindi and Read’s position, as their low-end prediction is
for marriages that occur “by accident” when a preference is
completely lacking—which is clearly not the case. Contrary
to El Guindi and Read’s assertion, the predicted rate for firstcousin impal marriage in the absence of a Westermarck effect
is far higher than 1%–2% (and even higher if second cousins
are included). That impal marriage is nonetheless rare is thus
consonant with reports of a subjective aversion that runs
counter to the normative preference—the hallmark of Westermarckian natural experiments.
137
References Cited
Fessler, Daniel M.T., and C. David Navarrete. 2004. Third-party attitudes toward sibling incest: evidence for Westermarck’s hypotheses. Evolution and Human Behavior 25:277–294.
Henrich, Natalie, and Joseph Henrich. 2007. Why humans cooperate:
a cultural and evolutionary explanation. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Kipp, Rita Smith. 1983. A political system of highland Sumatra, or
rethinking Edmund Leach. In Beyond Samosir: recent studies of the
Batak peoples of North Sumatra. Rita Smith Kipp and Richard D.
Kipp, eds. Pp. 125–138. Athens: Ohio University Press.
Kunstadter, Peter, Roald Buhler, Frederick F. Stephan, and Charles
F. Westoff. 1963. Demographic variability and preferential marriage
patterns. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 21:511–519.
Kushnick, Geoff, and Daniel M. T. Fessler. 2011. Karo Batak cousin
marriage, cosocialization, and the Westermarck hypothesis. Current Anthropology 52(3):443–448.
Lieberman, Debra. 2009. Rethinking the Taiwanese minor marriage
data: evidence the mind uses multiple kinship cures to regulate
inbreeding avoidance. Evolution and Human Behavior 30:153–160.
Lieberman, Debra, and Thalma Lobel. 2012. Kinship on the kibbutz:
coresidence duration predicts altruism, personal sexual aversions,
and moral attitudes among communally reared peers. Evolution
and Human Behavior 33(1):26–34.
Lieberman, Debra, John Tooby, and Leda Cosmides. 2003. Does morality have a biological basis? an empirical test of the factors governing moral sentiments regarding incest. Proceedings of the Royal
Society B: Biological Sciences 270:819–826.
———. 2007. The architecture of human kin detection. Nature 445:
727–731.
Pusey, Anne. 2004. Inbreeding avoidance in primates. In Inbreeding,
incest, and the incest taboo. Arthur P. Wolf and William H. Durham,
eds. Pp. 61–75. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Rantala, Markus J., and Urszula W. Marcinkowska. 2011. The role
of sexual imprinting and the Westermarck effect in mate choice
in humans. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 65:859–873.
Singarimbun, Masri. 1975. Kinship, descent, and alliance among the
Karo Batak. Berkeley: University of California Press.